I mean, if you were logged in, l'd be happy to go over the numerous reasons you may want an iPhone. I can make an excellent case for it, for an Android and for a dumbphone.
I think I misrecalled an EOL rumor as an EOL announcment They were flying hot and heavy when Google EOL'd some other versions this year. It may actually have longer. (Done as a reply to fahrbot-bot instead of my original post, so he can see it). Stay aware but you may have longer.
Those places with filth have lower life expectancy for a reason. You don't hear about it because it's not news. It happens too often. Also, most US/European news tends to ignore what happens in Africa and South Asia unless it's the business section focusing on outsourcing. Lastly, you are, of course, just wring. Here's a quick-to-find example
I'm kinda shocked by this logic. Clearly, phones are unequal. There's no reason to use the total number of phone models as anything interesting. For one thing, Android models churn much faster, because Android model IDs change when the OS gets upgraded on the same hardware or depending on the carrier. What matters is how many phones are available in a store at one time.
The second issue is that subdividing similar products doesn't make each equally likely, because you ignore bucketing. If there were 10 Chinese restaurants, and 90 pizza restaurants, your logic would say that the Chinese restaurants (on a whole) do 10% of the business. But that ignores that how people actually decide things. They decide on pizza or Chinese first, then choose a restaurant. So, even if pizza was three times as popular, you would expect the Chinese restaurants as a whole to do 25% of the business. Which would make each chinese restaurant three times as busy. And that's not suggesting quality, it's saying that, as people choose, important questions (OS) are answered before minutia such as screen size,
Lastly, you're again assuming bullshit. you have this holy 37X better. Clearly, according to crowdsourced research, the answer is that about 1/3 people prefers an iPhone. That measure has real world implications, not naval gazing. If you want to demonstrate that those people are wrong, you have to show it some other way. For what it's worth, Samsung phones enjoy a similar premium in choice.
Yes, when first and second aid each other, they should be commended. I only meant when, for instance, the person is second is more like Edison - someone who takes work from the first person and uses that to get across the line next.
I'm not really sure why that's a rare situation. I mean, most silver medalists deserve just as much respect as the gold medalists, Newton and Leibniz both are worthy of respect regardless of which one invented Calculus first.
In fact, there is only one situation where it doesn't make sense to show just as much respect to the guy coming in second: when they followed in the footsteps/were aided by the person who came in first.
I mean, that's an anecdote with superficial plausibility. But you're assuming what you want to show... namely that the iPhone is only the best choice for 2% of people. And, of course, people who naturally agree with you about the lack of iPhone merits are voting you up
I'm not sure why you think that the iPhone is such a bad choice for over 100 million Americans (and many more outside the US). It's amazing that you know more about their needs than they do. Or, the alternative, that their preferences are different from what you would expect to prefer. I mean, I would point to FaceBook as an example of "why would anyone want this", but clearly a lot of people have made a decision that they do. I'm not so arrogant as to say they're irrational, just that they put a different value on their privacy.
Every year or two? It seems like once every month or two (although the last one I saw was listeria, and it was after the Romaine lettuce nationwide panic). That tells me that Americans are not cautious enough.
I know, logically you can't have it both ways, but arguments such as this are seldom based in logic.
Of course it's logical. There's some optimal number of people going out for lunch (this number may change over time). When Apple built it's campus, the change in lunch-seekers was would make there be too many too fast, so they wanted to reduce it. Now, there are too few lunchers.
See the iconic Republican example of "A 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate both produce 0 revenue, but a middle point produces some.", or look at any quadratic function.
I'm not sure why you think the airlines will remove the nickel-and-diming. Have they lost any flyers since they instituted it? IIRC, most airlines are pretty much running at capacity already, and Boeing has a years-long waiting list.
How is it rational for me not to buy a device that, in total, is better than my current one. Sure, the lack of a headphone jack is a negative, and worse than the same phone with a headphone jack, but all in all, the new features may still make it a better phone.
It's not irrationality, it's coarseness of decisions. It's not like Apple offered two versions and let the market choose.
I'm so confused by your logic. "Let's keep the rich people from having complete control over us" Okay, that sounds like a good goal. "Therefore, the last thing we should do is take away some amount of their money by force, and use it so people can get healthcare without begging on the internet for help paying for it." Wait, what? That's totally backwards.
You then go on to use the phrase "marketable skills". But marketable skills just means you spent part of your life learning how to do somethign that someone else wants you to do. It's pretty much the definition of being controlled by the rich.
I don't think it's a coincidence. I think their inability to recover from the financial crash constrained their ability to pay for entitlement programs, and that's why they were cut. There's no reason to suspect the entitlement programs caused a real-estate bubble. After all, in 2008 the United States had a worse bubble [citation needed] and far less generous entitlement programs.
Make errors? They flat out make shit up. Inside Edition compared 23andMe vs. Ancestry.com and found a 10% difference between the tests. Testing the same sample multiple times revealed 50% differences. The "analysts" make shit up, to confirm what people are proud of (based on names, or how a client may want to prove if they are 100% X, or their self reported history, etc.)
It's just trying to get people to pay money to get their data added to a giant DNA database. Seems horrible.
Given the questionable accuracy and the ability of technicians to "tune" the test results, it could just be 23andMe trolling those people. Which may be a moral requirement to do to them.
Some gTLDs were commonly used internally to organizations. Included are things like.test,.dev, etc. Well, Google bought.dev. I'm sure there are other examples.
Most major grocery stores have a very thin margin, 2-3%. Whole Foods probably has a better margin. But they have a hefty delivery fee if you order under $35. So, that's probably just over a dollar. If they plan the delivery path well, that's probably right around the cost to deliver (esp. since they include a tip by default and the drivers are independent contractors).
I think "Property Manager" is a job. You seem to think most landlords are property managers. They aren't. They hire property managers (usually very part time, numerous services do this) that fix stuff, price the place, find tenants, etc. They just mail you a check. That's what "capitalism" is.
Also, a non-overridable function for the robot to not ask about the desire for "an alternative milk".
I'm sorry when you grew up there were only two things (milk, sugar) you could put in coffee. That sounds sad. You probably think the only two pizza toppings are cheese and pepperoni as well.
And not throw indecipherable passive-aggressive shade.
Maybe if you just answered the damn question about which kind of cream-thing you wanted instead of launching into a diatribe, you wouldn't get shade?
(Us Baby Boomers can be a bit rude when we don't get good service. But we say what we are unhappy with so that you don't have to guess IF there is something wrong, and if so, WHAT is wrong. In other words, we were taught some basic communication skills.)
Maybe the problem is that the service you want and expect isn't what the market wants and expects, and you're frustrated that the majority of people want milk-alternatives. Are you also upset that enough people speak Spanish as a first language that companies offer that option as well? Because the free-market has ruled against you on both fronts. Do you want us to insist that we make car rental people ask "and what kind of buggy whip would you like to borrow with your car" to make you feel comfortable?
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, if you were logged in, l'd be happy to go over the numerous reasons you may want an iPhone. I can make an excellent case for it, for an Android and for a dumbphone.
I think I misrecalled an EOL rumor as an EOL announcment They were flying hot and heavy when Google EOL'd some other versions this year. It may actually have longer. (Done as a reply to fahrbot-bot instead of my original post, so he can see it). Stay aware but you may have longer.
They have less industrial food production too. With industry comes a need for higher standards.
But the real question is "did the US health improve when this changed" And it did.
Those places with filth have lower life expectancy for a reason. You don't hear about it because it's not news. It happens too often. Also, most US/European news tends to ignore what happens in Africa and South Asia unless it's the business section focusing on outsourcing. Lastly, you are, of course, just wring. Here's a quick-to-find example
And
I'm kinda shocked by this logic. Clearly, phones are unequal. There's no reason to use the total number of phone models as anything interesting. For one thing, Android models churn much faster, because Android model IDs change when the OS gets upgraded on the same hardware or depending on the carrier. What matters is how many phones are available in a store at one time.
The second issue is that subdividing similar products doesn't make each equally likely, because you ignore bucketing. If there were 10 Chinese restaurants, and 90 pizza restaurants, your logic would say that the Chinese restaurants (on a whole) do 10% of the business. But that ignores that how people actually decide things. They decide on pizza or Chinese first, then choose a restaurant. So, even if pizza was three times as popular, you would expect the Chinese restaurants as a whole to do 25% of the business. Which would make each chinese restaurant three times as busy. And that's not suggesting quality, it's saying that, as people choose, important questions (OS) are answered before minutia such as screen size,
Lastly, you're again assuming bullshit. you have this holy 37X better. Clearly, according to crowdsourced research, the answer is that about 1/3 people prefers an iPhone. That measure has real world implications, not naval gazing. If you want to demonstrate that those people are wrong, you have to show it some other way. For what it's worth, Samsung phones enjoy a similar premium in choice.
Yes, when first and second aid each other, they should be commended. I only meant when, for instance, the person is second is more like Edison - someone who takes work from the first person and uses that to get across the line next.
It only runs 4.4.2, so it's EOL is in 2019. How usable will it be once Google starts cutting off its services.
I'm not really sure why that's a rare situation. I mean, most silver medalists deserve just as much respect as the gold medalists, Newton and Leibniz both are worthy of respect regardless of which one invented Calculus first.
In fact, there is only one situation where it doesn't make sense to show just as much respect to the guy coming in second: when they followed in the footsteps/were aided by the person who came in first.
I mean, that's an anecdote with superficial plausibility. But you're assuming what you want to show... namely that the iPhone is only the best choice for 2% of people. And, of course, people who naturally agree with you about the lack of iPhone merits are voting you up
I'm not sure why you think that the iPhone is such a bad choice for over 100 million Americans (and many more outside the US). It's amazing that you know more about their needs than they do. Or, the alternative, that their preferences are different from what you would expect to prefer. I mean, I would point to FaceBook as an example of "why would anyone want this", but clearly a lot of people have made a decision that they do. I'm not so arrogant as to say they're irrational, just that they put a different value on their privacy.
Every year or two? It seems like once every month or two (although the last one I saw was listeria, and it was after the Romaine lettuce nationwide panic). That tells me that Americans are not cautious enough.
Of course it's logical. There's some optimal number of people going out for lunch (this number may change over time). When Apple built it's campus, the change in lunch-seekers was would make there be too many too fast, so they wanted to reduce it. Now, there are too few lunchers.
See the iconic Republican example of "A 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate both produce 0 revenue, but a middle point produces some.", or look at any quadratic function.
I'm not sure why you think the airlines will remove the nickel-and-diming. Have they lost any flyers since they instituted it? IIRC, most airlines are pretty much running at capacity already, and Boeing has a years-long waiting list.
How is it rational for me not to buy a device that, in total, is better than my current one. Sure, the lack of a headphone jack is a negative, and worse than the same phone with a headphone jack, but all in all, the new features may still make it a better phone.
It's not irrationality, it's coarseness of decisions. It's not like Apple offered two versions and let the market choose.
I'm so confused by your logic. "Let's keep the rich people from having complete control over us" Okay, that sounds like a good goal. "Therefore, the last thing we should do is take away some amount of their money by force, and use it so people can get healthcare without begging on the internet for help paying for it." Wait, what? That's totally backwards.
You then go on to use the phrase "marketable skills". But marketable skills just means you spent part of your life learning how to do somethign that someone else wants you to do. It's pretty much the definition of being controlled by the rich.
I don't think it's a coincidence. I think their inability to recover from the financial crash constrained their ability to pay for entitlement programs, and that's why they were cut. There's no reason to suspect the entitlement programs caused a real-estate bubble. After all, in 2008 the United States had a worse bubble [citation needed] and far less generous entitlement programs.
Make errors? They flat out make shit up. Inside Edition compared 23andMe vs. Ancestry.com and found a 10% difference between the tests. Testing the same sample multiple times revealed 50% differences. The "analysts" make shit up, to confirm what people are proud of (based on names, or how a client may want to prove if they are 100% X, or their self reported history, etc.)
It's just trying to get people to pay money to get their data added to a giant DNA database. Seems horrible.
Given the questionable accuracy and the ability of technicians to "tune" the test results, it could just be 23andMe trolling those people. Which may be a moral requirement to do to them.
All the people selling stocks need somewhere to put their money. Some of them are going to see the dramatic drop in bitcoin and decide to buy in.
Some gTLDs were commonly used internally to organizations. Included are things like .test, .dev, etc. Well, Google bought .dev. I'm sure there are other examples.
Most major grocery stores have a very thin margin, 2-3%. Whole Foods probably has a better margin. But they have a hefty delivery fee if you order under $35. So, that's probably just over a dollar. If they plan the delivery path well, that's probably right around the cost to deliver (esp. since they include a tip by default and the drivers are independent contractors).
I think "Property Manager" is a job. You seem to think most landlords are property managers. They aren't. They hire property managers (usually very part time, numerous services do this) that fix stuff, price the place, find tenants, etc. They just mail you a check. That's what "capitalism" is.
I'm sorry when you grew up there were only two things (milk, sugar) you could put in coffee. That sounds sad. You probably think the only two pizza toppings are cheese and pepperoni as well.
Maybe if you just answered the damn question about which kind of cream-thing you wanted instead of launching into a diatribe, you wouldn't get shade?
Maybe the problem is that the service you want and expect isn't what the market wants and expects, and you're frustrated that the majority of people want milk-alternatives. Are you also upset that enough people speak Spanish as a first language that companies offer that option as well? Because the free-market has ruled against you on both fronts. Do you want us to insist that we make car rental people ask "and what kind of buggy whip would you like to borrow with your car" to make you feel comfortable?
You have to go back to the early 1980's to get such a bad labor force participation rate though... It's been pretty much like that since 2009.
This is the technical test tunnel. What was shut down was the tunnel that was trying to test it with members of the public.
I wonder what kind of "return as defective" laws are in place.